Hi,
On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 02:51:51PM +0200, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le mer. 4 sept. 2024 à 10:47, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
> > What about to get rid of the pgstat_count_parallel_heap_scan and add an
> > extra
> > bolean parameter to pgstat_count_heap_scan to indicate if
> > counts.parallelnumscans
> > should be incremented too?
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > pgstat_count_heap_scan(scan->rs_base.rs_rd, scan->rs_base.rs_parallel !=
> > NULL)
> >
> > 3 ===
> >
> > Same comment for pgstat_count_index_scan (add an extra bolean parameter)
> > and
> > get rid of pgstat_count_parallel_index_scan()).
> >
> > I think that 2 === and 3 === would help to avoid missing increments should
> > we
> > add those call to other places in the future.
> >
> >
> Oh OK, understood. Done for both.
Thanks for v2!
1 ===
-#define pgstat_count_heap_scan(rel)
+#define pgstat_count_heap_scan(rel, parallel)
do {
- if (pgstat_should_count_relation(rel))
- (rel)->pgstat_info->counts.numscans++;
+ if (pgstat_should_count_relation(rel)) {
+ if (!parallel)
+ (rel)->pgstat_info->counts.numscans++;
+ else
+ (rel)->pgstat_info->counts.parallelnumscans++;
+ }
I think counts.numscans has to be incremented in all the cases (so even if
"parallel" is true).
Same comment for pgstat_count_index_scan().
> 4 ===
> >
> > + if (lstats->counts.numscans || lstats->counts.parallelnumscans)
> >
> > Is it possible to have (lstats->counts.parallelnumscans) whithout having
> > (lstats->counts.numscans) ?
> >
> >
> Nope, parallel scans are included in seq/index scans, as far as I can tell.
> I could remove the parallelnumscans testing but it would be less obvious to
> read.
2 ===
What about adding a comment instead of this extra check?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
